If Dha'eef Hadith should be abandoned...........

 

[Nowadays, many opinions about Dha‘eef Hadith are circulating.  Needless to say, very few of them are correct.  Herein we present some more facts about Dha’eef Hadith in the opinions of the Hadith-experts.  The following is excerpted from the new (updated) book 20 Raka’at Taraweeh of Mufti Hafidh Syed Ziauddin Naqshbandi Qadri, which will be published very soon, Allah-willing]

The Gair Muqallideen (non-followers) claim to act only upon rigorously authenticated (Sahih) Hadith and if there is even a slight degree of unreliability in a Hadith, they don’t accept it and demand a Sahih Hadith.  However, they also act upon Dha‘eef Hadith.  We are presenting some examples here, which will show the truth about their claim of acting “only” on Sahih Hadith.

 

(1)  Hadith about having 2 witnesses for Nikah is Dha‘eef

 

The Hadith from which the non-followers deduce the necessity of having 2 witnesses for Nikah is not rigorously authenticated with respect to its chain of narration, but is weakly authenticated (Dha‘eef).  The necessity of having 2 witnesses is deduced from the following Hadith:

 

Translation:  Nikah is valid only with the permission of the guardian (Wali) in the presence of 2 witnesses.

 

Imam Daraqutni has mentioned this Hadith in his Sunan.  In the chain of narration of Imam Daraqutni, there is ‘Abdullah Bin Muhriz about whom Imam Ibn Hajr ‘Asqalani has written:

 

Translation: ‘Abdullah Bin Muhriz is a very unreliable narrator.

 

A very famous and authoritative scholar of the non-followers Siddiq Bin Hasan Qunuji writes in Ar Rauzatun Nadiyya after mentioning this Hadith:

 

Translation: In the chain of narration of this Hadith, there is ‘Abdullah Bin Muhriz who is a Forsaken narrator (Matruk Rawi, from whom narration of Hadith has been abandoned)  (Ar Rauzatun Nadiyya, Vol. 2, Pg. No. 22)

 

In another chain of narration of this Hadith, there is ‘Adi Bin Fadhl about whom Imam Baihaqui (May Allah shower His mercy on him) writes:

 

Translation: ‘Adi Bin Fadhl has narrated this although he is unreliable.  With a rigorously authenticated chain of narration, this is a Mauquf Hadith.  (Sunan Kubra Lil Baihaqui, Vol. 7, Pg. No. 202, Hadith No. 13494)

 

Imam Ibn Hajr ‘Asqalani (May Allah shower His mercy on him) has written in Talkhees Ul Habeer about the same narrator:

 

Translation: ‘Adi Bin Fadhl is an unreliable narrator.

 

‘Allama Haithami (May Allah shower His mercy on him) writes after mentioning 2 Hadith of the same meaning from Imam Tabarani’s M‘ojam Ausat:

 

Translation: In the chains of narration of both these Hadith, Rab‘ee Bin Badr is there who is a forsaken narrator.

 

Also Imam Ibn Hajr ‘Asqalani (May Allah shower His mercy on him) has declared Rab‘ee Bin Badr as forsaken narrator.

 

‘Allama Abu Ja‘afar ‘Aqeeli (May Allah shower His mercy on him) has written in his book “Dhu‘afaa” about Rab‘ee Bin Badr:

 

Translation: Imam Qutaiba has declared him unreliable.

 

‘Allama Haithami (May Allah shower His mercy on him) writes after mentioning another Hadith of M‘ojam Tabarani:

 

Translation: In this chain of narration, Suleman Bin Arqam is there who is a forsaken narrator.

 

Imam Nasai has included Suleman bin Arqam in unreliable narrators.

 

Imam Dhahabi (May Allah shower His mercy on him) has mentioned the opinion of the experts of Hadith criticism about Suleman Bin Arqam in Meezan Ul ‘Itidaal:

 

Translation: The Muhadditheen have stopped narrating from him

 

Translation: Imam Ahmed says:  We don’t narrate on his authority.  Imam ‘Abbas and Imam ‘Uthman have narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Yahya Bin Ma‘een that he is unreliable.  ‘Allama Jauzjani said:  Suleman Bin Arqam is Saqit Ul ‘Itibaar (totally unreliable).  Imam Abu Dawood and Imam Daraqutni have said that he is a forsaken narrator.

 

In spite of so many objections and reservations on this Hadith, the non-followers deduce from it.  The question is if the Marfu’ Hadith of 20 Raka’at of Taraweeh is Dha‘eef and thus unacceptable, then how does the Hadith of 2 witnesses for Nikah become acceptable to them in spite of being Dha‘eef?

 

(2)  The Hadith of a year having to pass before giving Zakaat on wealth is not rigorously authenticated

 

Among the conditions for the Zakaat to become Wajib is that a year should pass on the wealth.  This condition is compulsory for the non-followers as well.  The Hadith used to prove this is weakly authenticated.  Imam Baihaqui has written:

 

Translation:  Zakaat does not become Wajib on any wealth until a year has passed on it…………….In the chain of narration of this Hadith, there is Haritha, on whose narrations deductions cannot be based.  In this issue, the Traditions narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddiq, Hadhrat ‘Uthman, Hadhrat ‘Abdullah Bin ‘Umar and other Sahabah are considered.  (Sunan Kubra Lil Baihaqui, Vol. 4, Pg. No. 160, Hadith No. 7274)

 

Another Hadith of the same meaning has come from A’asim Bin Dhamra and Imam Baihaqui writes about him:

 

Translation: A’asim Bin Dhamra (i.e. his narrations) are not worthy of being deduced from.

 

He also said:

 

Translation: Hadhrat ‘Abdullah Bin Mubarak (May Allah shower His mercy on him) has declared him unreliable.

 

Another Hadith in this context is narrated on the authority of Harith Bin ‘Abdullah.  Imam Baihaqui (May Allah shower His mercy on him) clarifies about this:

 

Translation: Harith A’awar is unreliable.

 

It has been mentioned on the authority of Imam Sha’abi:

 

Translation: Imam Sha’abi has said that Harith is a liar.

 

‘Allama Haithami writes after mentioned a similar Hadith in M‘ojam Tabarani:

 

Translation: In the chain of narration of this Hadith, there is ‘Ambasa Bin Abdur Rahman who is an unreliable narrator.

 

Thus, the Marfu’ Hadith of 1 year having to pass for the Zakaat to become Wajib is not free of unreliability, but still the non-followers base their deductions on it.

 

(3)  All Hadith about the minimum measure of gold for Zakaat are weakly authenticated

 

The Hadith mention 20 Mithqaal as the minimum amount of gold on which Zakaat becomes Wajib.  Even the non-followers accept this, as given in Maqalat Wa Fatawa Abdul Aziz Bin Baz, Pg. No. 257 although there is no Sahih Hadith about this.  Imam Nawawi (May Allah shower His mercy on him) writes:

 

Translation:  In the Sahih Hadith, there is no clarification of the minimum amount of gold.  There are Hadith about this which give it as 2o Mithqaal.  However, they are all unreliable.  However, reliable Fuqaha have accepted it.  (Sharh Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, Pg. No. 316)

 

For this, there is no Marfu’ Hadith with a rigorously authenticated chain of narration.  In spite of it, the non-followers declare the minimum amount of gold to be 20 Mithqaal.  Is this not acting upon a Dha‘eef Hadith?

 

These 3 issues have been presented as an example to show that in spite of a Sahih Marfu’i Hadith not being there for them, the non-followers still act upon these Hadith.

 

(1)  The Marfu’ Hadith about 2 witnesses for Nikah is narrated with a weakly authenticated chain of narration.  There is no Hadith with a rigorously authenticated chain of narration.  So, in this issue, is deduction based on the Traditions of the Sahabah enough?  When the Traditions can become a proof for this issue, then why cannot the rigorously authenticated Traditions of the Sahabah become a proof apart from the Marfu’ Hadith?

 

(2)  The Muhadditheen have clarified that there is no Sahih Marfu’ Hadith about 1 year having to pass on the wealth for Zakaat to become compulsory on it.  The narrations from the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) have weakly authenticated chains of narrations.  However, there are Traditions of Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddiq and other Sahabah, because of which this issue becomes authoritative.  Our question still remains.  When the Hadith about this are weakly authenticated, then how is the deduction performed on the basis of a Dha‘eef Hadith?  If deduction from the Traditions of the Sahabah in support of a Dha‘eef Hadith is correct, then even if we consider the Marfu’ Hadith of Taraweeh to be Dha‘eef, why aren’t the Traditions of the Sahabah acceptable?

 

(3)  That the minimum amount of gold on which Zakaat becomes Wajib is 20 Mithqaal is not mentioned in any Sahih Hadith.  As per the clarification of Imam Nawawi, all the Hadith which say this are Dha‘eef.  However, the Fuqaha have a consensus about it.  Their consensus strengthens this Hadith.

 

Although Sahih and Marfu’ Hadith about these issues are not there, the non-followers have accepted these.  In their books, these issues are written in this manner only.  They issue Fatwas on this only.

 

This shows that they accept the Traditions of the Sahabah although they don’t acknowledge it.  The consensus of the Fuqaha has weight with them as a proof though they don’t admit it.  If it is not so, then what proof do they have to follow the aforementioned rules?  As per their principles, what is the justification for doing so?

 

Can they present a clear and Sahih Hadith of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) without needing to recourse to the Traditions of the Sahabah and the consensus of the Fuqaha? 

 

The literature of the non-followers is silent about presenting a Marfu’ Hadith about these issues.